Ike engine (GR1, SOAF, GR2, GRAW MP, this looks pretty similar to GRAW)

Codename Wallace

Cancelled in 2010

Will he, who was once great and started all of this - this web site, this community - be the biological father of the child, or will we see just another adopted son? I do not know the details of what has been announced by the obstetricians Red Storm and Ubisoft, I only heard the rumors of the EndWar family line being involved, of a potential mixup regarding the parenthood. But maybe all of these are just tell-tales, and once the truth is revealed the land can finally reunite under one common rule.

I, for one, am desperate for a new ruler truly deserving to bear the name of our King. I will swear my allegiance in an instant, I will bend my knee to the new Lord - but only if I will be able to see the unmistakably bright eyes of the father in the son's face, only if there can be no doubt about the child's ancestry!

And now, to be clear:

Give me Ghost Recon or give me nothing! Give me all that it was, nothing more, nothing less - just pull it out of the past and push it into the present! Give me up-to-date 3D models and graphics, a new physics engine, modern sound, the latest AI routines, cutting-edge scripting capabilities - and use it all to simulate reality to the highest degree possible on contemporary hardware! And don't forget the most important thing: Give me all the tools necessary to mod the game in any way I see fit!

https://discord.gg/UazfjQk

Again, great job on the game, but could use some bigger maps and more game modes.

When UBISOFT came out with GR:FS, I didn’t like what I was hearing about the game so I left the GR community to play other games.

Recently I came back to this website just for a look-see. Red some posts, found some gameplay on the internet. The game doesn’t look that bad. Other than the cloaking camo, I like the tech and it is not all that different from the games I have been playing.

Some questions though.

1.       You do not have full control of your squad like you did in the rest of the GR  series, correct?

2.       When you buy the game, do you get the entire game or do you have to go to a UBISOFT website and download some part of the game?

3.        After the game is installed on my computer, can I play the single player part of the game without my computer having to be connected to the internet, or do I have to play that part of the game through a UBISOFT server?

And anything else you think that I may need, or need to know in order to buy, install, and play the game would be most welcome also.

Thanks all.

OldGhost.

i was just wondering if any of the members here who bought GRFS, feel a bit disapointed.

I dont have GRFS because i dont have very good PC specs. but from what i've seen in the net

and been playing GRphantom online, i think the GR franchise has gone a little bit to far from reality.

To much futuristic, the soldiers seem to run so fast, and, i mean, that shield that makes you invisible,

c'mon! this is not harry potter, its war games.

Another detail i recently learned about. the new game has become second player view, or, when you can see your player running, wich graw didnt have. Now when you are behind a wall, you can move the camera view to see the enemy, we could not do it in graw because it was first player view. it made the game realistic and intense. there is also a lot of game detail all around your screen, amo, your squad, the enmies, the objectives.

Unless there is some kind of option to make it smaller or not displaying during the game.

I'll be getting a new rig soon, but not sure if im going to buy GRFS, i miss graw2 like an exgirlfriend.

what do you guys think ?

Home PC
ASUS P5QPL VM- INTEL E5400 2.7GHZ- DDR2RAM4GO- WINDOWS XP SP3 -GT220GEFORCE, Windows XP / Internet Explorer 8.0

office PC
INTEL CORE I7 870 2.93GHZ RAM 8GO OS*64bits
nvidia quadro FX 1700

laptop hp g60 550ca, windows 7 home 64

Even completely disregarding how far off franchise canon the game's design went; has anyone seen any evidence that Ubisoft made any results oriented effort to resolve the enormous litany of issues that made the multi-player portion of the game literally unplayable by the vast majority of people that bought the game?

To wit:

· a match-making system that mirrors every flaw in Ubisoft prior MMS (and DRM) design
· no server browser alternative to the MMS
· no dedicated server
· primitive networking that functionally can not work on may Windows PCs and/or routers
· crude networking design & configuration that Ubisoft Technical Support clearly did not understand
· technical support that isn't (problems closed as 'solved' that were never even acknowledged)
· pass the buck forum Community Managers and Technical Support personal
· decision makers obviously completely isolated from product reality
· promised fixes and patches that were never delivered
· patches that took months and even over a year to deliver that came with more new issues then fixes
· DLC that broke the game & fragmented an already tiny audience of sometimes playable games

I have corroboration from dozens of friends and acquaintances that bought the game through Steam, Uplay, DVD, and some like me via all three sources just to get it working, not to mention the thousands of forum posts on the Ubisoft and Steam forums that these experiences were not in any way unique.

That Ubisoft's own server tracker software on their Gurfus web portal never showed more then a tiny fraction of a percent of the gross sales of the PC game were EVER on-line and playing even when the game was new at peak play -- should be proof positive that something profound was seriously wrong and acknowledgement from the company should be forthcoming...

It's difficult to even approach the discussion of the MP portion of a game that was technically/functionally unplayable, i.e. never worked well or even at all for most that bought it. But one look at how this game was marketed with creepy 'selfy' and self indulgent marketing that ran the gamut, from Coco Porn Frankentit, to 'look at me' close-up face shot videos that were more like vlogs of amateur Developers and their great ideas then any actual game design or acknowledgement of an audience that might buy the game -- it's not hard to see why even approached with an open mind we got exactly what we paid for.

Still, do you see any sign that Ubisoft has moved forward? Have I missed something important? The new R6 Siege game looks hopeful, but where's your trust level of this company with respect to it's PC 'products'? My impression remains well described by 'products' -- that while Ubisoft may understand effective marketing (as far as game-play trailers advertising), they see their output as 'product' rather then as games that are fun and require acknowledgement, interaction with, and understanding of their audience to get to that objective.

would you mind giving me some good advice on what hardware to purchase to run GR so that I am play over the net all the mods that I keep seeing being produced here?

I've got a 360 but I'd really like to play the REAL Ghost Recon and just need to know the pc hardware that works best.

Thanks so much!!! Long Live Ghost Recon!!!

The pre released videos which made this game look as if it had some promise did not do justice to just how unbelevably horrible it is.

All the desire to play it drained from me within the first few minutes.

The forced 3rd person view, the fat, massive generic and un specific crosshairs, the lound colours and chunky graphics (eve on a 27inch Dell at all graphics as high as they can go) the horrible, horrible, horrible hand holding and shepherding into 'cool set pieces'.

Honestly, this game makes GRAW 1/2 look like the greatest games ever. I thought at least I might be able to adjust a lot of options to get it a bit closer to the GR we love but this game is to the GR franchese what a four piece jigsaw is to serious puzzles. Does it have any redeeming features?

Ghost Recon is surely dead and buried.

you may discuss at will

Anyway, this video podcast from Strafing Run verbalises a lot of the comments you'll see posted here, at Ubisoft and at countless other gaming websites. Hardcore Ghost Recon fans are going to find some solice in hearing confirmation of what they have been saying for years. Perhaps Ubisoft will consider the direction of the franchise if they hear this kind of concise feedback often enough.

What do you think? Is he right on the money, or should he let Future Soldier be what it is, and let gamers get on with enjooying it?

[media=]

"he survives a point blank grenade blast"

"wouldn't you want a more realistic experience?"

"butchering franchises"

"stop trying to be like eveyone else"

"you expect a game with Tom Clancy's name on it...."

(Failed to communicate with Online config service

ERROR : 800a0003)

can someone help me?

thanks for your time

Thanks

Its usable at the prologue but not anymore on other missions...

Thanks

OK found out